The Shocking Amount of Wealth and Power Held by 0.001% of the World Population

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/global-power-elite-exposed



Many now know the rhetoric of the 1% very well: the imagery of a small elite owning most of the wealth while the 99% take the table scraps.

In 2006, a UN report revealed that the world’s richest 1% own 40% of the world’s wealth, with those in the financial and internet sectors comprising the “super rich.” More than a third of the world’s super-rich live in the U.S., with roughly 27% in Japan, 6% in the U.K., and 5% in France. The world’s richest 10% accounted for roughly 85% of the planet's total assets, while the bottom half of the population – more than 3 billion people – owned less than 1% of the world’s wealth.

Looking specifically at the United States, the top 1% own more than 36% of the national wealth and more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%. Almost all of the wealth gains over the previous decade went to the top 1%. In the mid-1970s, the top 1% earned 8% of all national income; this number rose to 21% by 2010. At the highest sliver at the top, the 400 wealthiest individuals in America have more wealth than the bottom 150 million.

A 2005 report from Citigroup coined the term “plutonomy” to describe countries “where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few.” The report specifically identified the U.K., Canada, Australia and the United States as four plutonomies. Published three years before the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, the Citigroup report stated: “Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper and become a greater share of the economy in the plutonomy countries.”

"The rich," said the report, "are in great shape, financially.”

[BeyondGeography]

1. Capital sure has an awesome ability to suck up average productivity gains

[xchrom]

2. +1

[RVN VET]

3. This needs to be updated and reported quarterly

All the people need to know where the future is ineluctably heading. The 99% need to know why they and theirs really have at best a bleaker and bleaker future. The 1% need to know why they will have to spend more and more of their greed-gotten wealth on personal security and gated communities.

There will be at least one new growth career: propagandist for the rich. Those who can keep the public's eye off the prize and convince them that it isn't the 1% but, rather, hispanics, or blacks, or whites, or gays, or women, or atheists, or theists, or unions, or "communists" -- so that most of the suffering victims of the 99% will continue to vote for the 1%. Those who can catapult the propaganda claiming that the so-called "free market" isn't a monopolistic scam, that poverty is your own fault (except when its caused by one of the aforementioned groups), and that your sons and daughters can really contribute to society and have successful patriotic lives by joining the military and fighting for the right and freedom that only incidentally puts gobs more money in the vaults of the 1%.

[mountain grammy]

8. Well said! I think our elected politicians have become the "propagandist for the rich."

[Dustlawyer]

13. They are the flunkys for the rich! They pass laws hey want and kill those they don't.

They control the Courts and the media as well. Unless we publicly fund elections, we will never gain control over our government again! COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM (CCFR)!!!

[stillwaiting]

22. "There will be at least one new growth career: propagandist for the rich."

Nothing new about it.

There are quite a few nasties who have been doing so brilliantly for the rich for quite some time, and they get paid very, very well for it.

They do direct attention to the "unworthy" that you mention: hispanics, blacks, gays, women, people poorer than you are, etc. Way too many idiots want to make these "unworthy" groups suffer even if in the process their own financial security throughout life and their "golden years" suffers for it. Pretty horrible people if you ask me.

[cantbeserious]

4. The Oligarchs Own The Politicians And Control The System For Their Benefit

eom

[ReRe]

5. "It's beginning to look allot like....

....serfdom, all around the town." Just think of the absurdity of this whole situation.
We've come all this way to end up in the same GD place.

[sulphurdunn]

6. Asset friendly governments

Translation: Government of by and for the rich, bough and paid for by everyone else.

[RadiationTherapy]

7. I know we get inured to hearing the word "billion" but a billion is 1000 million.

So, for instance, Amancio Ortega is worth 37,500 stacks of 1 million dollars. Just let that image soak in.

[mountain grammy]

9. is that in $20's, $50's or $100's?

[RadiationTherapy]

12. Let's do $20s.

I'm already in a bad mood...hahaha.

So 37,500 stacks with 50,000 $20 bills in each stack.

[rwsanders]

15. When the numbers started coming in from the war on Iraq, I started translating billions into...

the number of $100,000 houses that could have been built for the same money.

[gtar100]

10. Thieves

Nobody is intrinsically worth that much. But if they could earn that much in a world without poverty, then I would be impressed. However, because so much of the world suffers so deeply, excess wealth held by anyone represents little more than theft, greed, and selfishness.

[TBF]

14. It's more than that -

it is more than being greedy. It is about an economic system, capitalism, that only allows this result. If folks would let that sink in and think about what it means we might make some progress.

[reformist2]

11. That's a good point they make, that GDP is mainly a reflection of what the wealthy are doing.

The ways our government measures economic performance have little to do with how the typical person is doing. GDP growth and even "per capita income" are skewed so far toward the wealthy that they are essentially meaningless statistics for most Americans.

[OneGrassRoot]

18. RFK offered great insight into our economic indicators decades ago....

[reformist2]

19. Thanks for that, I never saw that before. RFK would have been an amazing prez. :(

[arcane1]

26. That's one hell of a quote

Thanks!!

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

16. You know who I never see on any of these lists?

The Bush family.....

[mountain grammy]

17. Or Rmoney for that matter. It gives them something to work towards.

Isn't that special?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

20. I think they are SO wealthy

They can afford to keep their names off these kind of lists

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. There are so many ways of guesstimating wealth, it is really only useful for selling magazines

and papers. Many of the richest families are not listed as their wealth is in property, foundations, corporations, "rights" to natural resources and so on, so their wealth is, literally incalculable.

It's similar to using GDP or the market averages to measure the economic health of a nation. Meaningless to virtually everyone.

[hunter]

21. How do these ultra wealthy people make our world a better place?

I don't think they do.

Taxes should be such that nobody can accumulate this kind of wealth and power.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

23. International socialism is the answer ...

... instead, we have international capitalism (globalization) where capital can cross national boundaries, yet Labor can't enforce a standard practice for the international proletariat. That's the genius of globalization; resources and markets got saturated in relatively high standard nations with regard to Labor laws. So, let's expand make the world the market, and enslave the majority of the working class to make products and become consumers. While we're at it, this will pit the working classes against each other, while the uber-rich can make even more profit!!!!

Brilliant!

[Catherina]

27. Agreed. That's one of the best things I've read all week

and this week has been rich with great comments and unity against the real adversary, international capital, and all its tools like the NSA.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

30. Thank you, Catherina!

Solidarity!

[hay rick]

25. Should wealth be measured in dollars or starving children?

The dollar measurement of wealth relies on commentary, charts, and attention spans to give meaning to the maldistribution of wealth. I suggest we remove the distractions by measuring wealth directly in terms of the number of malnourished children that could be fed with the same money if it wasn't being mindlessly and heartlessly hoarded by plutocrats. Example: if $100 would properly nourish a third-word child for a year, we could say Larry Ellison (net worth $36 billion) is worth "360 million starving babies."

[Catherina]

28. Starving children, homeless people, jobless workers, freezing elderly

This is why I find all the charts used to justify capital exploitation so amusing. Great concept.

[liberal_at_heart]

29. This is our biggest problem. Nothing else will be solved until we address this problem.